[Gunkk]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The reason European lawmakers and Chinese policymakers are pushing it is centered around the Paris Accord.

And why the Paris Accord? [rhetorical]

Because it's a convenient banner to rally behind when you consider that Europe imports 100% of it's petroleum energy, it makes economic sense. Importing energy is a HUGE cash drain on European economies and their single greatest economic risk. "Look at all the CO2 we can avoid creating, and all the foreign currency cash bleed we'll save not creating it!"

China similarly is dependent on foreign sources of energy, and cannot continue to grow and control it's own energy future unless they stop importing oil in excess of what little domestic production they have in the South China Sea, etc.

So they are very tightly aligned to the PA along economic lines. And they're going hard in the paint for battery vehicles. They have to in order to stop the cash bleed from imported energy and preserve their economies for the next 100 years.

It's going to be bad enough when GM, Ford and Stellantis consolidate all their platforms in a similar fashion from dozens to just a few. And then just watch what happens to all the 2nd and 3rd tier suppliers for all those hundreds of thousands of of parts that all of a sudden become just ten-thousand parts. If there's no reason to stay in business domestically, then the US auto industry will slide even further down the path of "our business just imports and distributes stuff from made overseas" like 99% of the consumer products industry already has.

So yeah there is a huge global push away from ICE vehicles for basic economic reasons. And EU+China have plenty enough capability and willingness to move forward without the US's involvement. If the US Government doesn't support the market in the states to keep up with what China and EU are doing, the US will get left in the dust with zero domestic automotive manufacturing industry.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Gunkk

And why the Paris Accord? [rhetorical]

…

Because that’s where the meeting was held. Sort of like the agreement that ended WWI is called the Treaty of Versailles because that’s where the meeting was held.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Because that’s where the meeting was held. Sort of like the agreement that ended WWI is called the Treaty of Versailles because that’s where the meeting was held.

He was alluding to the accord part rather than the venue, as in, a political driving force... but you already know that, James.

Also, you say "reacting means you're behind", as though not being on the bleeding edge would be a de facto disadvantage—it only is when said bleeding edge is progressing towards something better, which in this case is highly debatable at best. My personal corporate experiences indicate that in general, staying just behind the edge is much, much wiser in our modern day as opposed to being first in a "blind leading the blind into the ditch" scenario.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

He was alluding to the accord part rather than the venue, as in, a political driving force... but you already know that, James.

To be honest I wasn’t sure. And there might be others following the thread who might not be as clear on that matter, so I figured I’d at least address that part of it. It was not an attempt to be snarky, so hopefully it wasn’t taken that way.

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Also, you say "reacting means you're behind", as though not being on the bleeding edge would be a de facto disadvantage—it only is when said bleeding edge is progressing towards something better, which in this case is highly debatable at best. My personal corporate experiences indicate that in general, staying just behind the edge is much, much wiser in our modern day as opposed to being first in a "blind leading the blind into the ditch" scenario.

What you are describing is being a fast follower. I would agree that being a fast follower is usually a good position to be in. Sometimes it’s good to allow someone else to be the canary in the coal mine to determine whether something is a viable direction or not. Hyundai / Kia have made a very successful strategy of being fast followers. When I say the US is reacting, that’s being in a position of being significantly behind even fast followers. Arguably, Scandinavian countries have been the ones on the bleeding edge of progress in terms of managing climate control, including but not limited to cleaning up the transportation sector. China was the fast follower, quickly overtaking Scandinavia’s early lead on EV development and product availability. Their commitment to other elements of climate control is still dubious, but they are all in on cleaning up transportation emissions. The rest of Europe has come along a bit after that.

At that point, every major automaker except Toyota has openly stated an intent to focus on electric vehicles and to de-emphasize their development and offering of ICE. They are tripping over each other in making public declarations of commitment to Carbon Neutrality, setting target dates of 2035, 2040, and 2050 to be carbon neutral. You’d be harder pressed to find automakers who have NOT declared a plan to be carbon neutral than those who are. It’s a very long list. Are they all stupid? I’m gonna guess they are not.

Toyota has been the slowest because they have made a huge bet on hydrogen fuel cell and aren’t really ready to let go of that. Fuel cell makes sense for them in Japan. Japan is an island, so the concept of long drives isn’t a thing like it is in the US where you can drive from San Diego to Bangor, Maine (3,140 miles). Japan also has very little dedicated personal parking, so charging “at home” doesn’t work for them. Hybrids and fuel cells do. Since Japan is an island, they can cover the entire country with a minimal number of hydrogen reforming facilities and a minimal number of refueling stations. The same is not true in the US. There’s no way a fuel cell vehicle is traveling from California to Maine except on a car hauler. Toyota is now realizing that if they want to sell in high volume in China, Europe, and now the US, they need to pump up their EV portfolio. They made some pretty big announcements this past week outlining their intent to add more EVs to their lineup.

[ZX-10R]

Imagine the resale value on these EVs in a few years, they are essentially rolling appliances and out of date just as fast

No soul....just like driving an appliance

I miss my KX500, but e dirt bikes are interesting if they can get the weight down

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Gunkk

….

Because it's a convenient banner to rally behind when you consider that Europe imports 100% of it's petroleum energy, it makes economic sense. Importing energy is a HUGE cash drain on European economies and their single greatest economic risk. "Look at all the CO2 we can avoid creating, and all the foreign currency cash bleed we'll save not creating it!"

China similarly is dependent on foreign sources of energy, and cannot continue to grow and control it's own energy future unless they stop importing oil in excess of what little domestic production they have in the South China Sea, etc.

So they are very tightly aligned to the PA along economic lines. And they're going hard in the paint for battery vehicles. They have to in order to stop the cash bleed from imported energy and preserve their economies for the next 100 years.

It's going to be bad enough when GM, Ford and Stellantis consolidate all their platforms in a similar fashion from dozens to just a few. And then just watch what happens to all the 2nd and 3rd tier suppliers for all those hundreds of thousands of of parts that all of a sudden become just ten-thousand parts. If there's no reason to stay in business domestically, then the US auto industry will slide even further down the path of "our business just imports and distributes stuff from made overseas" like 99% of the consumer products industry already has.

So yeah there is a huge global push away from ICE vehicles for basic economic reasons. And EU+China have plenty enough capability and willingness to move forward without the US's involvement. If the US Government doesn't support the market in the states to keep up with what China and EU are doing, the US will get left in the dust with zero domestic automotive manufacturing industry.

I intentionally did not comment on this part of your statement. I am an automotive consultant. Much of what we are currently consulting on deals with the impact of the transition for Tier II / Tier III suppliers, so I have to measure what I say to not run afoul of NDAs or preview (for free) what a number of clients are paying us good money for. So I’m still not gonna really respond, but at least figured I’d have the courtesy to tell you why. All I can say is it’s a mess.

[NG329]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

So the cool thing here is not only did you confirm my point, but the first article you referenced actually cites the company I work for as a source of their information.

Lawmakers are DEFINITELY involved in the push for EV in China and Europe. Sorta exactly what I said here… What’s driving the manufacturers is that most nations, including the largest automobile markets, have adopted the findings of the Paris Accord and acknowledged that the path to saving the global environment includes eventual elimination of internal combustion engine based transportation. The US is way behind larger automotive markets (China, EU Big 5) in adopting electric vehicles.. Lawmakers in multiple European countries are setting law consistent with Paris Accord findings. Those laws are pushing manufacturers to pivot their portfolios away from ICE to BEV. And because maintaining two dramatically different product portfolios is ridiculously expensive, they’re going all in on electric because that’s where their two largest markets are taking them. And it doesn’t matter what US administrations do because the US is no longer their largest market.

Your point is lawmakers ARE behind the move to EVs. My point is US lawmakers are not behind it, they’re reacting to it. Reacting means you’re behind. The reason European lawmakers and Chinese policymakers are pushing it is centered around the Paris Accord. The 2008-2016 administration had the US included in following the Paris Accord. The 2016-2020 administration removed the US from the Paris Accord. The 2020-2024 administration returned the US to the Paris Accord. The Paris Accord will continue to progress whether the US is part of it or not. Automakers looking to sell product globally have all pledge concurrence to the findings of the Paris Accord and will continue to do so no matter who sits where in Washington D.C.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I completely misunderstood your post but at least we're on the same page now.